Gregg Reynolds wrote:
On 2/17/08, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Geoff Steckel wrote:
Threads or any other form of uncontrolled resource sharing
are very bad ideas.
that might be true for those that don't understand threads.
for other it can be highly benefitial.
Indeed, "threads are bad" strikes me as just plain silly. In fact,
it's not even a technical issue; anybody who thinks it is is in for a
rude surprise (like, zero market share) in a few short years. It's a
"threads" is a particular programming model of multiple execution
contexts in a (mostly) shared memory and (mostly) shared resource
environment which is not cost-effective for producing reliable software.
It is much easier to produce a reliable multithreaded application using
multiple processes and an appropriate communication method for sharing
the specific data needed.
Any counterargument must speak to advantages the "threads" model has
over multiple processes or other protected multiple execution models
versus the increased cost of construction and maintenance of a reliable
program using the "threads" model.
Any argument to experience must be from similar actual implementations
using "threads" and another model, such as multiple processes with
interprocess communications.
A pandemic computer virus from Redmond exhibits bad interprocess
switching behavior. That does not change the argument.
geoff steckel
